My time here is over. I appreciate that Milbarge has tolerated my low-brow musings for so long. Thank you to all of you who've been good and loyal readers for the last two years. I've really enjoyed my time with you, but it's time for me to move on. I hope I brought some measure of amusement into your lives, and I hope that when you speak of me you speak well.

Here are some images (taken by Pfc. Jason Jordan, 1/10th Mountain Division) from a press release issued by Task Force Baghdad showing my brother's unit carrying out missions on the day of the Iraqi constitutional referendum. They had two principle tasks: search for weapons caches in the Abu Ghraib section of the city and enforce the vehicle restrictions that were instituted to reduce the opportunities for suicide bombers.

My brother reports that he is doing well and that the up-armored Humvees are essentially impervious to roadside bombs. Not much more to report, but when I hear from him again I will post an update.

I'm paying for every channel my cable company offers, but I'm watching less tv than ever. I probably watched more tv that semester in college when I was rooming with Sebastian and our cable was cut off because we forgot to pay the bill for about four months. I used to watch tv all the time, but that was in the days before cell phones and high-speed internet. Plus, there's really a lot of crap on tv nowadays. I'm just not very enthusiastic about watching any shows. For the first time I can remember -- probably ever -- I don't feel like there's a single show on television I regret missing if I happen to miss an episode. I know there are some good shows out there, like "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "Extras" on HBO, and "Arrested Development" on Fox. But I have an overall "meh" feeling about them.

So what do I watch? Aside from sports, not a lot. I've enjoyed the episodes of "Everybody Hates Chris" that I've seen, and I like "My Name is Earl" and "The Office." "Nip/Tuck" remains my guilty pleasure. But I haven't seen every episode of any of those shows. I'll pick back up on Fox's Sunday night lineup after the baseball season's over, I'm sure. I started out taping a few things on my DVR, but now I don't even bother, because I know I'm not going to care enough to watch them. There are other shows I watch if I happen to be in front of the tv when they're on, like the Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters," but I'm not making any appointments around it.

One thing that I know I'll be watching is a movie premiering on HBO tonight, "Last Best Chance." Here's an interesting "New Yorker" comment on it. The hour-long film was produced by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit organization focused on the dangers of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. You can order a free copy of the movie from the NTI web site linked above. The movie, starring Fred Thompson as the President, is a documentary-style look at what would/will happen if/when terrorists gain control of nuclear weapons. There seems to be an intent to scare people into action, and the producers figure (rightly, I'd guess) that an HBO airing of the movie is going to create a wider public consciousness of the issue than some dry hearing on C-SPAN. Anyway, I'm thinking it's worth an hour.

This post started out as just a mention of "Last Best Chance," but it got me thinking about how little tv I actually watch these days. I suppose the easy explanation is that I'm spending more time online and more time reading, combined with how much crap is on the air. But if you think I'm missing anything, feel free to let me know. Commenting just to inform me that the British version of "The Office" was better doesn't count.

UPDATE: I like when I write about something before one of the big boys gets ahold of it. Usually I have a thought of something to blog about, but before I can get it posted, some other site takes the wind out of my sails. Instead, after I wrote about how crappy tv is, Slate had a story up about the future of television. The author suggests that tv learn from the music industry's mistakes and embrace on-demand digital transfers as something of a super-a-la-carte system. It reminds me of a similar "future of tv" discussion I saw several years ago. One person said, "In the future, you'll have 1000 channels," but the other person said, "No, in the future, you'll have one channel -- yours." This seer meant that we would be able to pick our own programming, without the dictates of the networks' bundling two "Apprentices" for every "Office." Obviously, TiVo and related devices have helped this along. I know that I would rather not watch tv than have to watch it all, including commercials.

UPDATE: Also on Slate, here is a review of "Last Best Chance." It's somewhat critical: it recognizes the noble aims of the movie, but argues that the film is too "subtle" for Americans looking for carnage-as-entertainment. I guess the author would have preferred -- and thinks America needs -- another "The Day After." I can see the point, although the point of the movie is how it will be too late once we see the carnage. Yes, we have to motivate people based on suppositions, and hopes of what might never happen. But here's the thing. If we're successful, we'll never really know it. We need to come to grips with that reality -- that all the necessary hard work won't be flashy, and won't sell any movie tickets, and will be almost completely invisible. But our numbness is what the terrorists count on. If anything, I thought the movie made it look too easy -- with only a few weeks' notice, we were almost able to stop the plot. In real life, we won't be that lucky. Unless we do something now. I know: We could reinstate the estate tax to pay for it! Anyway, one final quibble. The Slate reviewer says "Last Best Chance" was poorly acted, but never mentioned the fine work by Rico!